Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

First, a Leas-Cheann Chomhairle, I thank all the Members who participated in this discussion tonight and in particular those, which was everybody apart from the the two Ministers, who support and see the need for this legislation.

I also want to thank those who expressed sympathy with me and Deputy Gallagher and the wider community, particularly the families of the tragic victims of the road collision on Sunday. There are no words that can express the hurt and loss that has been experienced by the families and friends and wider communities of Gweedore, the Rosses, and Cloch Cheannfhaola on the loss of Shaun Harkin, Daniel Scott, John Harley and Mícheal Roarty. It is a very difficult time we are going through.

Returning to this legislation, this is the code of practice that the Minister asked about back back in 2012, when he tabled a parliamentary question to the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. Deputy Noonan's answer said in answer to that that notwithstanding its voluntary nature, he expected that best practice would dictate that the code be applied by all institutions to all classes of residential property.

Is the Minister telling me that Deputy Noonan was telling him that the bank should do something that was going to wreck the economy, push up interest rates, lead to mass evictions and repossessions and every other thing that the Government side has thrown at this Bill tonight? The reality is he was not; this is the same code of practice that has been in place in the Central Bank since 1991 and is still in place there. The Central Bank has a code of practice where it outlines to the banks what they should do in the case of transferring a mortgage. We have repeated time and time again that the first line of that advice is that a loan should not be sold without the consent of the borrower. This is a very basic principle which has never been rescinded.

There is only talk about having it rescinded because I have have started to question this issue and the legal premise of the fact that it is voluntary, and the fact that I have met with the Central Bank and informed it that I am bringing forward legislation to put this into a statutory code. All this legislation is doing is what the former Minister, Deputy Noonan told the current Minister back in 2012 is what the banks should have been doing anyway. The code of practice that is currently in place does what Central Bank is saying.

Questions were raised on the constitutionality of the Bill and Deputy Michael McGrath raised a pertinent question as to whether legislation like this could impact on existing contractual law. If one looks at the 1976 Family Home Protection Act, at that point in time a spouse, usually a man, who was the sole registered interest in the home, if selling on the property could do so without the consent of his partner and spouse. This House introduced legislation that changed that and said "no consent, no sale". One had to get the consent of one's married partner if one wanted to sell a a loan, remortgage the property and so on. It is the same premise that it is here in this Bill.

A number of other things have been said about this Bill which simply do not stack up. Deputy Ó Caolain put it well when he talked about red herrings. The reality is that the mask slipped when the Government, in the Minister's first introduction, said that it was in favour of the normalisation of the banking system. To me it is never normal when family homes, and people who are meeting their arrangements have their loans sold on to the vulture funds without their consent. That is not the type of normal banking system that I or people out there want. The Minister says over and over again that the Opposition does not have a monopoly on compassion for those who are in mortgage distress and find themselves at the peril of the vulture funds or the banks. If that is the case then stand up and show us, because the Minister holds the shares in Permanent TSB that allowed the bank to sell 6,139 mortgages which were meeting their arrangements to Glenbeigh, a fund which will pay Permanent TSB for these mortgages and will get the receipts from these individuals paying their mortgages. This fund is unregulated and will continue to be unregulated, despite Deputy Michael McGrath's legislation. This is a fund that could raise interest rates in the morning and can change the rules without any recourse. This legislation is about taking a side and doing what should have been done many years ago because it is past time, unfortunately, for so many people who find themselves in the grip of vulture funds. For many others we can ensure that we can protect them. The simple point is that vultures should never have long-term products, they only have short-term interests. That is the problem. It has been said before by David Hall and Deputy McGrath and others, and I concur with them, that if one wants to lose possession of one's home and have the residual debt written off, than a vulture fund is a place for that person. If one wants to stay in the family home then it is better to remain with the bank.

Many Deputies in this House have been waiting a very long time to find out if the Government is going to issue a money message or not. Tonight the Government is saying that it could block this Bill on Committee Stage, despite this Dáil democratically wanting this legislation on the Statute Book. The Government is saying it will block this. I am saying that we will fight the Government on Committee Stage on this Bill. I will finish on this valid point; I believe that the Government has been abusing its position on money messages. If on Committee Stage, after legislative scrutiny it is believed that this Bill should go forward, and the Government attempts to block it by way of a money message, then maybe we need to do this in a legal forum because this would be an abuse of process. There is no charge or additional tax on the people and the Government's arguments are flimsy because it wants to stand for the vultures, for the banks and against the people. That is the problem the Minister has and he is on the wrong side of the argument on this one.

See this speech in context